~ archived since 2018 ~

Private eye hired by divorce lawyers admitted he hired female decoys to drink with men he was targeting in stings that led to their drunken-driving arrests...

visceralneeds

May 4, 2011

30 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/04/MNLS1J9OC2.DTL

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Private eye hired by divorce lawyers admitted he hired female decoys to drink with men he was targeting in stings that led to their drunken-driving arrests...
Author	visceralneeds
Upvotes	30
Comments	19
Date	May 4, 2011 8:50 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/h4aac/private_eye_hired_by_divorce_lawyers_admitted_he/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/private-eye-hired-by-divorce-lawyers-admitted-he.1040255 https://theredarchive.com/post/1040255

Comments

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisandryIsPoop 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisandryIsPoop 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisandryIsPoop -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cislum 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisandryIsPoop -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Veldang 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you can. The reason for arbitrary ruling is because it is applicable to the supposed majority. The tests for impairment are very unreliable and often come with a great deal of bias from the examiner (e.g: say the alphabet backwards, walk in a straight line, calculate pi to 50 places (if they want you to fail)). BAL tests are there because they are definite, you have xxx level and that is illegal. You may be perfectly capable of driving, but studies show that the majority of people at that level can't. So they go with it.

As for Women being worse drivers... well, I'm not going to argue. My personal experience is that you're right. They generally are over cautious to the point of harm and misjudge distances and the like.

Whether that is because they are Women is a totally different bag of chips. You'd never be able to prove it's because they're female, and it probably isn't exclusively because of their sex, it's likely due to some external element (like not driving as much as guys as they don't like cars as much or some such).

The reason it's sexist is because you can't prove it to be true, therefore it's an opinion, a negative one, based around gender. Hence, sexist.

[–]MisandryIsPoop -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you can. The reason for arbitrary ruling is because it is applicable to the supposed majority. The tests for impairment are very unreliable and often come with a great deal of bias from the examiner (e.g: say the alphabet backwards, walk in a straight line, calculate pi to 50 places (if they want you to fail)). BAL tests are there because they are definite, you have xxx level and that is illegal. You may be perfectly capable of driving, but studies show that the majority of people at that level can't. So they go with it.

This is anti-freedom. The state chooses a verdict that will result in easier convictions, allowing for more innocents to be convicted at the expense of more guilty being convicted, which is unjust. Forgive me if I want to be convicted of actually being impaired, let alone DOING ACTUAL HARM, before I go to jail and am marked with a DUI offense that's little better than a sex offender registration for employment purposes. DUI laws are much like drug laws and prohibition - completely unnecessary, and of course fully supported by female voters.

As for Women being worse drivers... well, I'm not going to argue. My personal experience is that you're right. They generally are over cautious to the point of harm and misjudge distances and the like.

Misogynist! Haha.

Whether that is because they are Women is a totally different bag of chips. You'd never be able to prove it's because they're female, and it probably isn't exclusively because of their sex, it's likely due to some external element (like not driving as much as guys as they don't like cars as much or some such).

Don't be silly. Part of it is the fact that women drive less, but even women who drive all the time show these same symptoms. Women are worse drivers because women are simply less suitable to roles that require hand-eye coordination and spatial recognition. There is a reason that men in traditional societies are hunters, for the most part, and it isn't just strength - it's coordination.

Women are less coordinated, which is obvious to just about anyone.

The reason it's sexist is because you can't prove it to be true, therefore it's an opinion, a negative one, based around gender. Hence, sexist.

No, it's not sexist, because not only is it obvious, but it's an opinion, based on experience and fact. It would only be sexist if I said as such without basing it in anything I'd experienced. You can't prove that women's terrible driving is due to some external element, either.

Besides, it doesn't fucking matter what women's bad driving is due to. It's a simple fact. It's also a fact that men who drive well go to jail for doing so more often than women who drive poorly. Now that's sexist.

You wonder why women are worse drivers? Fuck! Read this and then watch the BBC series: http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/04/30/4437/

I watched the entirety of The Human Planet. Men were the ones who did everything dangerous, everything adventurous, everything to protect and provide for their families - because they JUST DID.

That's not to say women don't have their own contributions, but they are not the same as men's, and they are not "equal".

[–]Veldang 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Alright I like a challenge :) -This is anti-freedom. Agreed. Though it sounds like your argument is less against the use of BLA for screening purposes and more about how they treat you if you fail. Perhaps a middle ground of "BLA to see if you're over the limit, if you are a competency test to see if you're incapable of driving" would be a better way. This however still has the flaws of the old system. While BLA may seem all negative it can also protect you from overzealous police sticking you for drunk driving when you were not drunk (I've heard of sober people failing their tests). Also the punishment seems to be way out of line, lock up for the night seems the better choice until you've actually done some kind of harm.

-Misogynist! Haha. Not quite. While i said Women are generally better drivers, I don't think it is because they are Women. I think it's because they're inexperienced drivers, the majority of which just happen to be Women. From my observation anyways.

-No, it's not sexist It is sexist if you think it's purely because "they're Women" but being sexist also doesn't mean that you're wrong. Life is sexist by it's nature, it's not always a bad thing. Dudes can't have babies, tough shit! Sexist? yes. True? also yes. Admittedly this is mostly semantics. If you've got proof to back your claims, then I have to concede that you're correct. Simple as that. :)

[–]MisandryIsPoop 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While BLA may seem all negative it can also protect you from overzealous police sticking you for drunk driving when you were not drunk

But we both know it's not for our protection, it's to make prosecution easier.

Honestly, I've been a bigger danger on the road when I was really tired than the few times I have driven after having enough beers to put me over the "limit". In my opinion, the biggest danger with driving buzzed is that you will learn that it's okay to drive after drinking, and then when you're really drunk you'll think, hey, it's a great idea to go driving right now! Is driving buzzed actually dangerous? Not very, if you can handle it. And like I said, it's often much more dangerous to drive tired enough that you run the risk of falling asleep. In both cases, you should be able to pull over at a gas station and get the sleep you need. Of course, if a cop finds you there and thinks you've been drinking, he's going to try to nail you for DUI just because he can - not because he's protecting anyone. Cops should be spending their time protecting people, but of course, that's not how the laws they enforce are written. Prosecution for victimless crimes is bullshit.

I think it's because they're inexperienced drivers, the majority of which just happen to be Women. From my observation anyways.

You may be right. Or perhaps they know they don't really have to care because they'll get away with fucking up when the male cop comes to the scene to save them. Entirely possible. Though I have a strong feeling based on experience that women are naturally just less confident drivers - which means worse drivers. Women in general are less confident, and it's not just because they don't have to be - it's just male nature to strive for things, which builds confidence. Female nature - not so much, they tend to want security.

-No, it's not sexist It is sexist if you think it's purely because "they're Women" but being sexist also doesn't mean that you're wrong. Life is sexist by it's nature, it's not always a bad thing. Dudes can't have babies, tough shit! Sexist? yes. True? also yes. Admittedly this is mostly semantics. If you've got proof to back your claims, then I have to concede that you're correct. Simple as that. :)

Indeed.

[–]cislum -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]KnightKrawler 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MisandryIsPoop -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link